Final moral question about killing and this website

Asking if the world would be better or worse if all the stupid people suddenly died, even if pretending that the sadness of their deaths does not exist in the world, is a misleading question. What's next? Suppose aliens came to earth and said "We will communicate in peace, except if you want to start Alien Evolution Program Number 1, on which you provide us with 200 kids for us to dissect alive and study their conditions under extreme circumstances, and then we give you super-technology that will cure absolutely all diseases and automatically increase the IQ of all inferior minds, and reset all the ecological system and undo all the damage [the aliens have super divine technology]".

Do you think the world would be a better place after this? Is this right?

Remember the answer? Yes, but we must keep in mind the consequences and effects of this on the rest of humanity. Keep some of our "human" intact while we carry this out. A society of sociopaths would go nowhere but down.

A few people mentioned that IQ alone is not enough to determine the true value of a person/society. Things like dedication, good moral character and kindness are just as important. Really, there are many contributing factors that make up the whole and when one is neglected there will obviously be an imbalance.

It doesn't follow that by weeding out low IQ people, other positive traits are lost to mankind. Low IQ people are not special bearers of certain virtues that are not also expressed in the intelligent people.

It doesn't follow that by weeding out low IQ people, other positive traits are lost to mankind. Low IQ people are not special bearers of certain virtues that are not also expressed in the intelligent people.

The law of probability would indicate that there's probably a few dozen worth saving, if only for the sake of that law.

It doesn't follow that by weeding out low IQ people, other positive traits are lost to mankind. Low IQ people are not special bearers of certain virtues that are not also expressed in the intelligent people.

This is true. The idea that you would extinguish people on the sole basis of their intelligence, however, implies that these other virtues are basically irrelevant, or that they're a pleasant bonus at best. Obviously, a number of people around here disagree, including myself.

I don't even see how that is implied at all. I don't have any use for compulsive liars or certain career criminals either. Yet, by volume how prolific are these special cases and what follows from that is how widespread is the scale of impact of one select vice when compared to something shared by all which is degree of intelligence?

Maybe for the earlier people who proposed a parallel idea like Margaret Sanger, intelligence is a particularly important quality for human life in general both individually and as a result, in the aggregate for the shared society they affect. Lynn bore this out in his famous book which itself was subjected to a similar controversy that we see with the topic at hand.

For me, I'll tend toward Sanger and Lynn's camp for what best determines a society's outcome and continue patiently waiting for any contrary offering that isn't nonsense.

Quote

According to Quinn, the physical decay in West Philly is matched by the social decay....

Quote

The once proud homes are in shambles. Bags of garbage dot the landscape. Most of the people who live here are parasites on society. Personal responsibility, work ethic, education and marriage are unknown concepts in this community. Even though more than 50% of the students in West Philly drop out of high school and the SAT scores of West Philly High students are lower than whale ****, the bankrupt school district spent $70 million to build a new high school/prison to babysit derelicts and future prison inmates. The windows do not have steel bars yet, as the architect was smart to put all windows at least eight feet above street level.

It was a test of objectivity and logic over a Tangible goal. The position rightly agitated the incognito bleeding hearts of the forum.

I read this same thing somewhere else. Anyway, does that mean the website does not really agree with killing people in mass scale based on low IQ??

Quote

It doesn't follow that by weeding out low IQ people, other positive traits are lost to mankind. Low IQ people are not special bearers of certain virtues that are not also expressed in the intelligent people.

So what? And what about the moral question I propose in this thread? Is it right to hand over the children to the aliens?

I'd really like to further utilize this thread to manifest my opinions and hopefully get some defining answers about what I perceive to be the cruelty, inhumanity and devaluation of human life I saw and see on this website and other associated with it, and find out what stuff was just dark humour, and what was to be taken seriously.

Imagine that an unidentified homeless man was admitted to the hospital. The official diagnosis is coma due to head trauma. He may or may not ever revive, but until or unless he does, his is a drain on society. However, three rooms down are people with families who could use a heart, kidney and lung. Assume all blood types are ideal, etc, etc, etc, no Aspie crap. Cutting him up is sure death, but letting him stay on life assistance via State dollar means allowing the other three to die.

What is the right course of action?

What cost will be payed by the hospital that allows him to subsist, and what costs are owed by those who end him for his parts?

They argue that since intelligence is based more on heritability than environment, social programs such as welfare and affirmative action should be abolished, because genetic differences would contribute more greatly to individual’s futures, than would wasting taxpayer’s money.

I'm all for eugenics, population planning, selective breeding. NOT unnecessary torture, inhumanity, genocide, etc... You already have lethal injection and electric chairs, implant family planning for reducing population and eugenics program to raise the quality (those are all your ideas that I always agreed with). Is that not enough? But that was not the point of the thread. What I would like to know is if this stuff about mass killing based on IQ is to be taken seriously or not, because that would imply supporting one of the biggest mass killings the earth has ever seen that is not based on war or natural disaster, unnecessary suffering and pain. And those things matter!

Expound a bit more on your uses of unnecessary and matter because these are the key points of contention.

Why does the volume of the garbage we need to throw out matter? For those who consider piles of garbage in the streets unacceptable, the fact that the garbage is overflowing is what matters not that there is now too much to bother with anymore. Consider that for many of us, Third World living and the psychology that causes it isn't normal. It is dysfunctional.

I swear to God scourge, whenever I read yours or Conservationist's posts about this stuff I feel almost too tired to respond. Mainly because you two seem not to like addressing my points directly! But also because some things are so obvious for me and other people, and you already know it, like why most people would say a mass killing of inferior people IQ, that would result in years of daily murder and sufferring, that is so bad I don't even have to describe it, is wrong. Wasn't china able to control its population by planning? If a government that had the power to implant the genocide of low IQ's (what a ridiculous idea - IQ is not a valid meter for a person's value - I'd take an low IQ person with courage to rescue me from a fire than a coward high IQ) it is a government that could also implant family planning and eugenics successfully.

I mean, I see talk here encouraging people to be adults, and that is a recognition of the type of people this website attracts. So you already made a connection about this kind of warped message and teens. And yes, saying things Conservationist has said here, which things I cannot remember all, but can remember when he said the biggest problem in this genocide would be to find more fun ways to kill the people before it gets boring. So it seems the game here is played like this, conservationist, prozak or some other guy (if its not all the same guy) says some absurd stuff like this, which later is dismissed as a joke (as Conservationist himself said once that only a psychopath would enjoy a turn of events that called for mass killing), and the person who read it feels like an idiot for taking it seriously, like "Calm down dude, this is the internet." BUT, this way the true intentions of the writer are never made explicit, because later other comments pop up that suggest conservationist is not so of people's feelings (and by that I don't mean he reveals another person has bad breath in front of everyone, but that he does not mind people are tortured and killed because they're dumb). Torture and killed? Am I not exaggerating? No, because I have read a post in the anus blog in the past that said that not only should we kill the stupid people, we should also find more painful ways to do it. Then the same doubt returns: How much of this is a joke?

And the worst thing is that scourge kind of makes the person who manifests against the killings (me, somebody else) look like he is against improvement of IQ, like "By your leftist solution to events you seem ill equipped to accept the reality that a nation with higher IQ people would be best.", which is not true at all.

And then comes this:

Quote

This guy is an obvious nutjob who killed innocent albiet moronic people for no apparent reason.

I may be wrong by lumping aquarius, which was displayed in the past as a member of anus, on the same place as conservationist and scourge, but I have a feeling that they would agree with him here. What the hell is that? Moronic people? Does he even know those people? Does he seriously think it is enough to read some news about the shootings and the victim's families to classify them as moronic, and not worthy of being given the benefit of the doubt and talked about with respect in this tragedy? One of the guys even jumped in front of his girlfriend to save her. If that's not heroism, I don't know what is.

The mock outrage displayed here at supposed immoralities is nauseating. If you read carefully you will see I am actually against violence, but I can't deny that the average western person is basically a fool, hopelessly lost in materialism and consumer culture. If you don't already see this decay in people I would think you are denying it or have identified yourself with them.

The problem is almost intrinsic to overpopulation and its effect on the environment. At this point of the conversation one could argue that just about any group could disappear on mass and it would only help the situation. But if it's mainly under 120iq people that demand the 'good life' which is draining the environment and turning society into a sewer then they are a problem. Of course one could argue that it is preferable to assess individual people on a case by case basis, but this just won't happen in the world and if we're honest with ourselves the results would be the same anyway.